Pages

Monday, January 21, 2013

Looks like my fellow knuckleheads Keith Giffen and Kevin Maguire will be joining me at the Baltimore Comic-Con in September. The official press release is below. Hope you can make it: the Baltimore Con really is something special.

Baltimore Comic-Con Welcomes Back DeMatteis, Giffen, and Maguire

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND - January 21, 2013 - The Baltimore Comic-Con is happy to announce the return of J.M. DeMatteis, Keith Giffen,and Kevin Maguire to this year's show, taking place the weekend of September 8-9, 2013 at the Baltimore Convention Center.

Writer J.M. DeMatteis began his career in the late-'70s working on DC Comics' horror line of books. In 1980, he moved over to Marvel, where he worked on The Defenders and Captain America. Over the next 30 years, DeMatteis would write nearly every major character in both the DC and Marvel Universes, including Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Silver Surfer, Daredevil, and Doctor Strange. DeMatteis is currently co-writing the Phantom Stranger along with Dan Didio for DC Comics.

Keith Giffen is a writer/artist who has worked on such titles as OMAC, Nick Fury's Howling Commandos, T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, and his creator-owned series, Hero Squared. Giffen is currently working on Threshold and the recently announced Masters of the Universe ongoing series for DC Comics.

Artist Kevin Maguire, who has worked with both Giffen and DeMatteis on several books, began his a career in 1987. He has worked on such high-profile titles as Batman Confidential,Captain America, and X-Men, and he is currently working with Paul Levitz and George Perez on DC Comics' World's Finest, which stars the Huntress and Power Girl.

DeMatteis, Giffen, and Maguire are well-known for their run on DC Comics' Justice League in the late '80s, which added a humorous brand of storytelling to the superhero team dynamic and brought a lighthearted tone with fantastic humor - something different in a comic landscape that was filled with "grim and gritty" books.

"We couldn't be happier to have these three creators reuniting once again at this year's show," said Marc Nathan, show promoter of the Baltimore Comic-Con. "Their appearance together at the show in 2011 was a real treat to fans who attended the show and who attended their panel. Their work in comics in the late-'80s helped to lay the groundwork for many of today's modern characters."

In the coming weeks, look for more announcements from the Baltimore Comic-Con. We are looking forward to highlighting our guests, the Harvey Awards, industry exclusives, and programming. The latest developments can always be found on our website, Twitter, and Facebook pages.

47 comments:

I know this has noting to do with this, and also I feel it has already been asked in some way, but I can't really remember it. Do you think that Marvel with their new Marvel NOW and DC's new 52 the missed an opportunity to expand mainstream comic perception? I mean I love superheroes, otherwise I probably wouldn't read comics, but their are more to do in comics than that. Should they be doing more for Sci-fi, crime, horror, and slice of life? It seems like that would help bring in new readers. Especially if it was a Shock Suspense type thing where the books where samplers. Or if they had a full story an issue instead of many smaller ones. It seems every time they try genre work that says Marvel or DC on it and not an imprint it is still at least vaguely superheroish. That seems very limiting. This is just a question to an insider from an outsider. Also, what ever happened to ads?Thank you for your time.

Blah, blah, blah hipness, stars, all that jive,Jack

"I'm not the kind o father who does stuff, or sits up or looks at you... but the love is still there." -Krusty the Klown

Don't know if they missed the boat with NOW and the New 52—the point of those seems to be to bring new energy to the established universes and it's clearly working.

That said, we ALWAYS need crime, horror, romance, slice of life, science-fiction etc. Anything to break the stranglehold that superheroes have on the marketplace. I love the Marvel and DC Universes, but the more story diversity we have, the better it is for the creators and the audience. Over the course of my career I've tried to do all kinds of different things, work in many different genres and fields. It's kept my work fresh and kept me sane.

DC made a big push with the New 52 to expand their magic/fantasy corner by re-integrating some of their Vertigo characters into the mainstream. All things considered, I'd argue the first phase was wildly successful--SWAMP THING, I, VAMPIRE, JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK, etc...and that's how we arrived at the second phase with books like PHANTOM STRANGER.

Marvel hasn't really made a push to expand their reach very far beyond the core AVENGERS/X-MEN lines lately. But then, Marvel's tried various fantasy series and they don't tend to sell. I guess we'll see if that holds true with the new Morbius book. Venom has also experimented with dark fantasy elements, bringing in Hellstrom as a villain.

It's weird, but it's the best and worst of times when it comes to branching out. On the one hand, the shrinking market means that Marvel and DC can no longer sell horror/war anthology comics (mostly DC). When comics went to the direct market, they seem to have lost whatever audience was buying those. Guess it wasn't the same people picking up FANTASTIC FOUR or BATMAN week in and week out.

On the other hand, you've got more independent publishers than ever. It's great that writers and artists aren't dependent on Marvel and DC to tell stories like SAVIOR 28 or ADVENTURES OF AUGUSTA WIND.

I agree, David, both in terms of the supernatural books and the variety of material you can get from the independents. Problem is, if you look at the sales of most of those books well, it can be pretty disheartening. That said, these days the discriminating fan can enjoy their superheroes AND sample a wide variety of other kinds of material. Which is a very good thing.

Yeah, sales are discouraging. There's no denying that comic books just don't sell what they once did! On the plus side, we've got the TPB market and digital. So I guess time will tell if that makes comics more profitable in the long term...I mean, get comixology to run one good "J M DeMatteis" .99 cent sale and watch the money roll in, right? :)

On a related front, I believe Mark Waid has been arguing for a while now that digital comics need to be priced at a dollar. I tend to agree; comics were at the height of their popularity when they were a 'cheap' and 'disposable' medium. They shouldn't cost more than an entire music album (and at 3.99 a pop, they often do!).

While yes I do agree that DC has made a push to go to more supernatural direction, it is still this vaguely superhero vibe. Which in itself is fine, I just feel that I would like to see them push forward and try to get away from it. I think with science fiction and horror, when you have an ongoing character who isn't just narrating it is hard to not make them seem a bit Superheroish. Swamp-Thing is the perfect example. Yes he is in no way a Superhero in traditional terms, but when I read the excellent Scott Snyder's work, it still felt like a superhero going up against a super villain, albeit in a very unique way. The same holds true for Hellboy and John Constantine. They aren't superheroes really, but it is hard not to do some lumping, and to still view them as such. And as far as Sci-Fi goes, it's all Space Opera. Which is fine, I enjoy Space Opera, but their are other science fiction stories to tell, just not ones as easily to tell with a fixed cast. Yes Walking Dead works over at Image, but it is still a hard thing to do, even Dracula seemed quite like a supervillain in the 70's, and werewolf by night a hero.

And as far as Indie books go, yes they are a great haven for such stories. Hell, even Marvel and DC imprints like Icon, Epic, and Vertigo produce great books along that line. However with even top indie books like Image and Dark Horse still in a fairly far second to the big 2, I feel that they lack the true power draw creators in. And, I certainly wouldn't want them to loose that charm they have. Also, Marvel and DC have a differant editorial style, Indie companies usually wait for something to come in... a fine idea for them, but Marvel and DC can make decisions about what they want, what criteria should be filled, and actively seek out talent to make it happen. In away the Big two have the power to make the industry more diverse than 20 Indie companies.

As far as digital goes, well dollar issues are rally not an option right now, at least for new comics. Most of the money goes to the creative teams and running operations, in reality printing and delivery is somewhat small of a cost, and yes you could probably drop at least a dollar, but you have to factor in that you need someone to upload stories and manage the site. Also, alot of time, also one must recognize the animation effort, sure it is only a page turning (do panels pop up up though) but that still costs money, even if it is just page to page all that code still needs to be written. Even if they find away around those digital costs tough, as In said it is mostly creative and business driving it up.

The only real way to bring prices down is actually the most obvious... ad revenue. Print or digital, that is what is supposed to be the real source of income. The problem is aside from the cover Marvel and Dc really just have house ads, 10 pages wasted per issue on house ads. If the got more adds prices could drop easily. Purchasing is SUPPOSED to be the smallest part of the income, but Marvel and DC made it the biggest. Also, on the print side, cheaper pare. I hate the expensive paper they use now, ink often comes off of it because of the gloss factor, which also makes it harder to read. More than that though it drives up cost needlessly.

However, I think digitization bringing people in is false. If no one goes to the site it really does not matter, and it has been my experience that hard copies make it easier to get people in to something than links that they very well will ignore or forget about. The real issue is that people don't read anymore. The real way to get comics wider audience is for fans to be proactive and get them in the hands of people who read, but not comics. Seriously the number of people who can read, but don't is very disturbing. New formats are nice, but without an audience they are meaningless.

And yes Mr. Dematteis, you have mixed it up, and I thank you for that, I just want more people to.

I'm glad David joined this conversation, or am I joining yours? either way, glad it happened.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack

You've said a mouthful, and then some, Jack. I invite anyone else out there who has an opinion to join in.

I just want to add that I think that digital is a BIG cost saver and that prices could easily come down. I also believe that many people who wouldn't be caught dead walking into a comics shop would happily download a comic and read it on their tablet. But you're right, they have to be guided to the material. We need an iTunes of comics.

And speaking of tablets: I've seen among friends that own them that they actually read MORE when they have Kindles and iPads. So the digital platform is encouraging reading, something that should make us all happy.

You know, I like to think that I have been coming to this site long enough that my long, rambling, detailed, rambling, insightful, but really just rambling texts should not be a surprise.

Strange, I have actually noticed the opposite of sorts. With few exceptions, I've noticed people who do read quite a bit, unable to use tablets to read. And though, I do see how having access like that could increase reading, I still notice that by in large people just choose not to read very much at all, which is very sad.

I have however known people who have gone a little while without reading comics picking them up at book stores, so at least all eggs for not have to be in one basket.Even it an iComics, I still feel that for the first time maybe ever this is an ea where fans have just as much if not more responsibility in bringing in new readers. To an extent I think we fear at worst having something we care about mocked even ion a friendly way, and best being pigeonholed. God Knows I have receive gifts about the comic industry that I don't know what to do with because some people don't think I have any other interest. We however have to get over that. For the time being the fan and corporate angle need to work together to grow the fanbase. It' not like we need to get everyone buying issues every week. We just need to make it a viable option for entertainment for a larger group.

As far as cost cutting goes, I will differ to you to a certain extent, what with you working in the industry. However I have talked about this with some programmers, though I am not willing to take their say so as gospel. That all being said, any publication regardless of medium that comes out daily, weekly, monthly, or bi-monthly needs ads for revenue. That is just fact. I sometimes worry that the comic industry doesn't have enough of people representing the business angle. Comics need ads, no more or less than newspapers, journals or magazines. It is what keeps them afloat. And the big two just aren't putting enough energy into that.

However, I will admit all this digitization makes me nervous on many levels and for multiple reasons in each of those levels.

But really, I think the best way to ease people into comics are MORE WORDS! God knows I love the old guard for keeping that up. From Dematreis to Peter David to Starlin and Wein to Englehart and just so many other pre-2000s writers, they use words, and lots of them. I think the decompressed thing pushes people away, and honestly sometimes almost does the same to me. When it takes 4 minutes to read a four dollar comic consisting of 22 pages of story something is wrong. That is a dollar a minute! Please comic book writers from after 2000, more words. I love the artists, but don't let them take over the medium.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack

But, seriously, I'm not going to knock decompression—when it's used well, it's a great tool and, in many ways, allows for even greater depth and texture in a story. I think the problem is there are people out there who really don't know how to use it and think decompression means stretching a little story out over twenty pages.

I do think digital can push the price down to a dollar. It's really a question of short-term benefits versus long term. If Marvel and DC want to spend the next twenty years fighting over the 300,000 or so readers who are already deeply invested in their characters, then yes, they'll have to drain them dry to account for the fact that they're not pulling new readers in. Then we can look for comics to be $20 a pop in ten years, all so they can make the same off the 50,000 who are left that they did off the 300K.

It's counterintuitive, but comics were at their height when they were seen as 'cheap' and 'disposable.' You can only charge $4 for a comic when you believe your primary audience is adults who NEED a Batman or Spider-Man fix, and that's not good for the industry.

If I were a young reader with no attachment to the medium, I don't think I'd start reading comics today. Not when I can buy a digital book for $10 that keeps me occupied for a week, as opposed to a $4 comic that keeps my attention for five minutes.

I'm not sure what Marvel's costs are. I hear the cheaper paper stock really doesn't make a cost difference these days. They only use that paper for aesthetic reasons, like when it's more suited to the nature of the artist's original work than the glossy format.

Something else to consider re: the high price point. When we live in a world where a kid can go see a superhero movie—and get the whole experience in 3D—and then go home and watch a great DC or Marvel cartoon and THEN go off and play a superhero video game...well, he can be a massive fan of these characters and NEVER READ A COMIC BOOK.It's a frightening thought, isn't it? But if the comics are cheap enough...and if they're easy to purchase...and if they're (most important) ACCESSIBLE, then maybe we can grab a new generation.

I can't help but wonder if the 'exclusives war' in the early 2000s cemented price increases. Marvel and DC have more people on contract than ever before. Which puts them in the interesting position of paying more money to please fewer readers...whereas when they were selling comics like crazy, it was mostly freelancers.

As far as decompression goes, you are absolutely right, it is a matter of use. What counts isn't how much time something takes, but rather how much you enjoy it. However, correct me if I am speaking out of turn, but perhaps we have a difference of perspective here. I think as a writer your first inclination is to see the possibility for story's, and admittedly I (and I assume David...sorry to peak for you) have seen this done very well. However as people who have been comics for the past decade, and not been in the field working, the first thing that pops up in our minds is how decompression sometimes breaks up a story. Over the past ten years the big 2 have pushed the style to pad out trades, this often causes what should be 2 issues to be six, not by any fault of the writer but rather by company mandate. Essentially a broken low in story is easy to detect, but when used right it just bleeds into the rest of the story. Also, I can't speak for David, but 6 months for one story can be brutal, especially when it is EVERY book. A lot happen in a life in half a year outside of comics, hard to believe I know... a life outside of comics, it is to laugh. Because of this it can sometimes become frustrating when I have to recall something from issue 172 in issue 178. It has less to do with the act, but rather how popular it has become and the lack of editorial over isights AT TIMES, but not always.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack

You make a number of good points there, Jack. Let's face it, the Lee-Kirby Galactus story, the seminal epic of the early Marvel Universe, was donet in three issues. That said, I think you wouldn't mind spending six months with a story if it was a story with a rich plot, depth, great characters. The problem is spending six months with a story that could easily be done in two.

As for company mandates about stretching stories out for the trade: I've heard that spoken of but I have no personal experience of it. Not saying it isn't true, just that I never encountered it.

You are right, paper quality doesn't make much of a dent, I was just venting. Having said that, you actually have hit the nail on the head with the problem of $1.00 internet comics. After all every once in a great while Marvel and DC will put out a dollar book. The issue with cost is really more to do with the background costs. Running a company isn't easy, nor particularly cheap. Editors, writers, illustrators, inkers, an so on all need pay. Not to mention all the people who work at Marvel and DC who have nothing to do directly to do with comics. Based off of your posts I know both You Mr. Dematteis and you David are intelligent people, so I am sure this is not news.. I just feel a need to flesh out points so bear with me. Sorry.

The question is how hen can other publications like print and online papers do it for so cheap. Well that is interesting. Printing after all is said and done is not that much of an expense when done in bulk. Traditionally ads are what make newspapers cheap, they subsidies the paper. This is also true for websites, this is why every once in a while you here about some punk kid making money off of a porn sight or something without charging, ad revenue. Internet isn't really that much different than print in terms of business.

However, Marvel and DC decided that they where specialty magazines instead of general interest. Many times, but not always, specialty magazines realize that they have a built in readership and are less likely to attract new readers by a cover (like say Newsweek or People would) they will often times decide to base there income off of a subscription/cover rate. The fact is however you really just make this decision, you do not file anywhere, but it may be different state to state. At this point ads are still used, but for a lesser whole of the bottom line. That is why in publications like this you see smaller ads, or fewer, or less expensive. I personally think that Marvel and DC should try to hybrid these two ideas.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack

I'm agreed with your thoughts about decompression. In general, I'm not a fan of the trend. I tend to prefer brevity. When I write stories, the thing that's always first and foremost in my mind is, "Don't overstay your welcome." Better to leave audiences hungry for more than bored and tired. And that trend is aggravated somewhat by the 'double shipping' trend.

That was my first thought with the new Superior Spider-Man arc. I couldn't help but think it might be more exciting if it was a six issue storyline rather than a year long epic.

And this gets back into the way companies see their audience. Superior Spider-Man ships twice a month and Avenging Spider-Man once. That's $12 a month and if the story only lasts a year, we're talking 36 issues and $144 to get the full story. (Well, Avenging is supplemental, but you get the point.)

I typically don't have any idea if I'm even going to have that kind of money throughout the whole year! Cars and appliances break. Kids and sports and pictures. Doctor bills. It makes me much more reluctant to commit to a mega-arc because I've been in a position where I suddenly couldn't afford to follow it through!

But as with all things, mileage varies. I know my dad was never a fan of two-parters, and here I am longing for the good old days of six-issue crossovers!

I'll also point out that my opinions aren't always consistent with my reaction. In general, I prefer shorter arcs with longer rolling subplots, but it's not a rule or anything.

I'm sure when KLH first came out, there were people who thought it was crazy for one storyline to absorb every Spider-Man title for two months, and others who thought it was the best thing ever! (It would have been hard to sell the buried alive thing if Pete had been fighting Mindworm in a different book that same month.)

Overall, I get the impression writers have more freedom to determine how long their story should be than ever before. You read all these horror stories in the 90s where writers were forced to stretch arcs out or end them abruptly.

Your point about KRAVEN'S LAST HUNT is right on the money, David. It was editor Jim Salicrup who came up with the idea of the one story running through all the Spider-titles, for the very reason you mention. Believe it or not, that had never been done before...and folks have been copying Jim's idea ever since. Jim is also the guy who came up with the title KRAVEN'S LAST HUNT. My title was FEARFUL SYMMETRY. The first collected edition combined both title—FEARFUL SYMMETRY: KRAVEN'S LAST HUNT—but, over time FF is forgotten and KLH has become definitive.

A friend of mine had this to say about KLH. I thought you'd get a kick out of it:

"Some people overrate KLH. Like those who claim it is so good that it can cure warts, do your laundry, get you out of debt and ring in world peace. But those people are just crazy, there is no way it can cure warts."

The fact is that you two make good points about Kraven's LAst Hunt. And however, that 6-issue did have help of only being two months instead of six, it still fits very well into the point of long stories. The fact is I can really enjoy long stories even in monthly style. I never took time to think of it but, I only consider decompressed a bad thing, like when you use the same panel 6-9 time to show a pause. It i opnly decompression in my mind if it is stretching out a story that should be shorter. It is all about how dense it is. If each issue is rich with plot and character, then great take as long as you need. I will also probably remember it better, so no complaints. Even a long story can be too short. A good example of this is "IT." Now I am not the biggest Stephen King fan in the world, but I do at least appreciate and often enjoy his work. When I read IT though I found it lacking. It is an 1100 hundred page book that needs to be 300 pages longer. Characters are lacking, plot elements should be expanded on, and over all some things could just use a little more fleshing out. And I even enjoyed reading that. Decompression in my mind is the opposite and the same. These stories have two better options: 1) flesh things out more through more words 2) shorten it, make it a easier to remember and story that is more inclusive. To me a story should take as long as it takes. No more Less. The key in a medium like comics is pacing. It is a unique challenge in comics, movie and TV have people speaking to guide and prose writing is more easily controlled. (continued)

It does seem that old school writers are not as forced into decompression, a good example of this is Peter David's excellent current X-factor run. He has done stories of short, medium, and long lengths. I think it is assumed that more established writers already have pulling power so the Trade Paperback market is not as important, after all a lot of former readers pick up new things in that medium. I think another reason is actually similar to Stan and Jack. Stan Lee used to tell artists to draw more like Jack. I think Bendis's success made editors push it. I also think that the experiences cause it. Frank Miller opened up a cinematic doorway, I think many people who read that while younger soaked it in. I think that fact in itself has become a virtue, sometimes over proper pacing. Think about it though, Starlin, Englehart, and Peter Davis all have novels under their belt. Stan Lee said he once thought about leaving comics to write the great American novel. Gerber would use literal paragraph writing, not panels or word balloons, from time to time. Mickey Spiline got his start at Timely. Now where does outside talent come from? Movies and T.V.. Where do comic writers moonlight? Movies and T.V.. Denny O'neil did it in sci-fi magazines. Maybe that is a symptom of my earlier point about less people reading. Maybe that is just the Frank Miller influence being even stronger than people everyone thought. I do worry sometimes that comics are going to simply be absorbed into other media completely, and not be their own medium any more. After all, Mark Millar sold the film writes to a comic before it even hit the presses. But let's be honest as good as any movie or T.V. show are, they never really capture superheroes as well or believably as comics. Every other genre is great, and as I said I wish they would become a much larger part of the big 2's plans, but still capes have a stranglehold for a reason, they work own the medium. Horror, crime and sci-fi in comics may be great and done for cheaper than movies, and have certain virtues over prose, but they can never own comics. They work equally if not more effective in other media, and they certainly didn't grow up in them. Superheroes did. Batman:TAS is great, Marvel has had great success with movies, but even animated films that are adapted exactly don't do it as well as comics. No other medium allows you to both shoe something with an image, and internalize a characters thoughts so uninhibitedly.

And don't count out those words shits. I'm a guy who owns a shirt which rads "Philip K. Dick was right." so A whole lot of things can sell.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack

"I'll cut you like a box... along the flaps!" (guess the Simpsons character whop said this and you win a prize... your own self respect.)

I do think Bendis' influence has been a major factor. And I'll be honest, I loved his Daredevil run, but I've never personally connected with his other superhero stuff. That's no slight on his talent, as no writer can be all things to all people. There are fans who feel that Frank Miller wrecked Daredevil, after all, and if you enjoyed the devil-may-care Wally Wood take then I'm sure he did!

When it comes to superhero comics, I personally enjoyed the 80s and 90s the most. Maybe I'm just trying to articulate reasons why I loved it so much when it comes down to being the right age to really soak everything in. All I know is it felt like an amazing time when stories were becoming more character-driven, but not at the expense of the action. You get profound insight into Kraven's character, but man, my heart was going budda budda budda with those jungle drums the whole trip.

And then you had stories with a lasting impact: Norman had been dead for over a decade, but was more of a villain than ever because of the way his legacy twisted Harry and the Hobgoblin. He was the anti-Uncle Ben.

The conventional wisdom these days is, "Of course Norman and Kraven and Harry were destined to come back, because everything is cyclical." I don't buy it. There was a time when everyone was committed to sticking with the impact of those stories. The only reason Norman was brought back was as a kind of sleight of hand trick to distract readers from the mess the Clone Saga had become in the absence of a clear direction (had Ben Reilly been allowed to assume the mantle after ASM 400, things could have been different...)

That's my thoughts on the state of the industry. But hey, it's not like I don't enjoy comics these days. And my son is developing his own strong opinions, so that one day he'll be telling his kids that no one ever topped Dan Slott's work (or some other writer I've never heard of yet).

And thanks to both of you for a great discussion. I really needed this today...my Friday hasn't been off to the best start!

Also I agree with you completely about Bendis. Not bad, just not for me by in large. His Daredevil was amazing though, if you haven't picked up the current "End of Days" story of his I would recommend it.

Wishing you nothing, but goodwill and hipness from here to the stars,Jack